Alast wrote:That's simply not how natural selection works. No matter how much you want it.

If you smart with a smart swimmer in an environment favoring smart over dumb swimmers you will never see the smart swimmer successfully mutating into a dumb one because the smart one is more efficient here.

Vice versa on an environment favoring dumb swimmers.

I'd too love seeing smart organisms evolve from dumb ones. We've tried that pretty hard in the past. "Nature" just doesn't provide it on such small scale.

You guys are thinking evolution is so weak.
I do have a recipe which allows dumb cells to easily turn into smart ones, the only flaw being that it is close to impossible to get a programmed senseocyte simply because they pop up without programming, which is basically a keratinocyte in a substrate without predators. Automatic random programmation on popup is reasonable, but to get to the point, here is the recipe:
-Simple dumb buyocytic swimmer
-Rapid mutation causes a new cell to appear on the organism, a senseocyte. It produces S1 when it sees the wall.
-The buyocyte was forced to be programmed randomly due to radiation being turned on, just like snap values.

This didn't mean it was any different from regular buyocytes. It just had the ability to react to S1 by 8x from a, while their passive -3 b remained.

This was completely random, not the slightest amount of favouring of a specific kind of cell. It just didn't have tons of 0 scores in many cell modes from the start that would originally not even alter the behaviour or efficiency of the cell.
This organism having the ability to oscillate without a neurocyte by bouncing near the wall, is quite a bit more efficient than regular ones.

An even simpler example of such randomised programmation of a newly appeared cell is the age buyocyte. A buyocyte which has the ability to reverse its flow after 20 hours of going up. Much more efficient, all it takes is for programmation to tick itself on cell creation, and on cell mutation.

-First experiment of the Aspiring Apprentice-Once a single split,
Now a grand gift,
Thanks to evolution,
A complete revolution.

The substrate being well lit,
The cells no longer fit,
One last tragic split:
"I quit!"
-the Lost Poet

humon wrote: the only flaw being that it is close to impossible to get a programmed senseocyte simply because they pop up without programming

Unless there is a bug I'm unaware of, this is not true. Contaminate cells have random programmable values. All cells have all programmable values, they are just not in use (kind of like "junk" dna), but can still mutate. E.g. a contaminate photocyte will have a smell output value that is random. Once this photocyte mutates to a stereocyte this value will be in use. A genome editor photocyte will have zero on the programmable outputs, but these will quickly have mutated since they do not affect survivability and they will be essentially random in the long run.

To be clear:
snap values is only a feature of the genome editor making editing easier.
no programmable mutations/contaminate settings show up if the gene pool doesn't have senseo/stereo/neuro-cytes.

Version 97 still does not solve the problem. I can basically confirm that Petter intentionally programmed radiation to kill off anything more complex than a 3-mode basic swimmer if point mutations is off. And if a basic swimmer can't survive the conditions, it's straight to mass extinction, killing any chance of saving the species by raping the genomes of any cells still alive.

My suggestion is making it so radiation does favor the emergence of intelligence rather than abhorring it.

I think it's time to come clean with you. Petter, I know this is against our agreement and that I will be excommunicated for this.

Yes, Petter and the rest of us moderators are in fact Creationists and once we've realized how powerful his initial mutation algorithm was we've decided it needed to be toned down as it could otherwise make people believe that Darwinism is real instead of believing in the truth of an Intelligent Designer...

What do you mean, that radiation "kills off" smart organisms? I've run smart organisms through thousands of hours with fairly high radiation (point mutations off), and as long as the substrate supports a large and diverse population, the smart behavior can persist, and even be improved.

If the environment is so harsh that your organisms may die back to just a few, a bad mutation could make the species go extinct. The key is to keep radiation fairly low, and sustain a large population, so a bad mutation in one of them cannot put the whole species in peril.

Last edited by wapcaplet on Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alast wrote:
Yes, Petter and the rest of us moderators are in fact Creationists and once we've realized how powerful his initial mutation algorithm was we've decided it needed to be toned down as it could otherwise make people believe that Darwinism is real instead of believing in the truth of an Intelligent Designer...

As a Catholic, I do believe in Jesus Christ and God, but it doesn't mean God made man the way it is today. He simply started us off, and we developed into what are without his direct intervention.

We'd essentially would still be living in a world without technology if it weren't for Darwinism or evolution. How else could corn be the way it is today?

Just because the mutation algorithm was "too powerful" does NOT mean people will believe Darwinism is real. Most people who play this game might not even know what it is yet...

It's for the better that religious beliefs do not get involved in the game's development. After all, if evolution can work for basic swimmers, wouldn't that also conflict with creationism?